Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
6593681 Sartre JeanPaul Nausea

6593681 Sartre JeanPaul Nausea

Ratings: (0)|Views: 51|Likes:
Published by zubairblaze
Book from the famous writer Jean Paul Sartre
Book from the famous writer Jean Paul Sartre

More info:

Published by: zubairblaze on Mar 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 jean-paul sartre
hayden carruthexistentialism entered the american consciousness like an elephant entering a dark room: therewas a good deal of breakage and the people inside naturally mistook the nature of the intrusion.what would it be? an engine of destruction perhaps, a tank left over from the war? after a whilethe lights were turned on and it was seen to be "only" an elephant; everyone laughed and saidthat a circus must be passing through town. but no, soon they found the elephant was here tostay; and then, looking closer, they saw that although he was indeed a newcomer, an odd-lookingone at that, he was not a stranger: they had known him all along.this was in 1946 and 1947. and in no time at all existentialism became a common term. noquestion of what it meant; it meant the life re-emerging after the war in the cafes of the left bandisreputable young men in paint-smeared jeans, and their companions, those black-stockinged, makeupless girls who smoked too many cigarettes and engaged in who knowswhat follies besides. and their leader, apparently, was this fellow sartre, who wrote books withloathsome titles like nausea and the flies. what nonsense, the wiseheads concluded. perfectly safeto dismiss it as a fad, very likely a hoax.meanwhile at centers of serious thought the texts of existentialism, especially sartre's, were being translated and studied, with a resulting profound shock to the american intellectualestablishment. on one hand the neo-thomists and other moral philosophers were alarmed byexistentialism's disregard for traditional schemes of value; on the other the positivists andanalytical philosophers were outraged by existentialism's willingness to abandon rationalcategories and rely on nonmental processes of consciousness. remarkably violent attacks issuedfrom both these camps, set off all the more sharply by the enthusiasm, here and there, of smallwelcoming bands of the avant garde. that the welcomers were no less ill-informed aboutexistentialism than the attackers, didn't help matters.nevertheless existentialism, gradually and then more rapidly, won adherents, people who took itseriously. someone has said that existentialism is a philosophyùif a philosophy at ail-that has been independently invented by millions of people sim-ply responding to the emergency of lifein a modern world. coming for the first time to the works of sartre, jaspers, or camus is often likereading, on page after page, one's own intimate thoughts and feelings, expressed with new precision and concrete-ness. existentialism is a philosophy, as a matter of fact, because it has been lengthily adumbrated by men trained in the philosophical disciplines; but it is also and morefundamentally a shift in ordinary human attitudes that has altered every aspect of life in our civilization.
the name, however, like the names we give all great movements of the humanspiritùromanticism, transcendentalismùis misleading if we try to use it as a definition. there areso many branches of existentialism that a number of the principal existentialist writers haverepudiated the term altogether; they deny they are existentialists and they refuse to associate inthe common ferment. nevertheless we go on calling them existentialists, and we are quite right todo so: as long as we use the term as a proper name, an agreed-upon semanteme, it is as good asany, or perhaps better, for signifying what unites the divergent interests.it is nothing new. william barrett, in his excellent book irrational man (1958), has shown thatwhat we now call the existentialist impulse is coeval with the myths of abraham and job; it isevident in the pre-socratic philosophies of greece, in the dramas of aeschylus and euripides, andin the later greek and byzantine culture of mystery; and it is a thread that winds, seldomdominant but always present, through the central european tradition : the church fathers,augustine, the gnostics, abelard, thomas, and then the extraordinary pascal and the romantictradition that took up his standard a century later. and in the orient, concurrently, the entiredevelopment of religious and philosophical attitudes, particularly in the buddhist and taoistwritings, seems to us now to have been frequently closer to the actual existence of mankind thanthe rationalist discourses of the west.yet in spite of these precursors and analogues we would be gravely wrong to deny themodernity of existentialism. philosophical truth assumes many forms precisely because timeschange and men's needs change with them. thus what we call existentialism today, in all its philosophical, religious, and artistic manifestations, springs with remarkable directness fromthree figures of the last century. two were philosophers, s0ren kierkegaard and friedrichnietzsche, who, although they lived a generationapart, worked and wrote independently. they arrived at positions that were in many respectsentirely contrary, for kierkegaard was deeply committed to the idea of the christian god whilenietzsche was just as deeply divorced from it; but in other respects they were alike. they sharedthe same experience of loneliness, anguish, and doubt, and the same profound concern for thefate of the individual person. these were the driving forces too in the work of the third greatoriginator, the novelist dostoevski, from whose writings, especially the brothers karamazov andnotes from underground, springs virtually the whole flowering of existentialist sensibility inliterature.our own century has devoted much labor and intelligence to the elaboration of these beginnings. it is customary to say that the principal existentialist philosophers of our time aremartin heidegger, karl jaspers, gabriel marcel, and of course sartre. but many others, includingthinkers as diverse as jose ortega, martin buber, nikolai berdyaev, and a. n. whitehead, have beeninfluenced by the main factors of existentialist concern. in literature many, or even most, of thechief modern authors have been, consciously or not, existentialists; certainly the tradition is verystrong in the line of development represented by kafka, unamuno, lawrence, malraux, hesse,camus, and faulkner. even a writer as far removed as robert frost from the centers of self-conscious existentialism joins in this alignment, as we see when we reread such poems as"the census-taker" and "stopping by woods." then what is it, finally, that has produced such wideeffects'?nobody knows. that is, nobody can pin it down in a statement, though a number of people,including sartre, have tried. simply because existentialism is not a produce of antecedent
intellectual determinations, but a free transmutation of living experience, it cannot be defined.nevertheless the important tendencies are evident enough.in the first place, existentialism is a recoil from rationalism. not that existentialists deny the roleof reason; they merely insist that its limits be acknowledged. most of them probably like to think that their speculations are eminently reasonable, yet not rational; and they emphasize thedistinction between the terms. in particular, existentialism is opposed to the entire rationalisttradition deriving from the renaissance and culminating, a hundred-odd years ago, in the "cosmicrationalism" of hegel. hegel's writing is difficult and often obscure, but his purpose wasto unitetinal keality with ideal reason in a system that sublimated all negative or oppositional tendencies.it was a magnificent work, symphonic in its harmonies and variations, and it took hold on men'simaginations so compellingly that today its effects are dominant everywhere, both in theacademic and "practical" worlds. but for a few men, notably kierkegaard, this apotheosis of themind did not account for human experience. pain and ecstasy, doubt and intuition, privateanguish and despairùthese could not be explained in terms of the rational categories. long beforefreud, kierkegaard was aware of the hidden forces within the self, forces that, simply by existing,destroyed all rational, positivistic, and optimistic delusions.hegelianism was the philosophy of history and the mass. by projecting a final reality towardwhich all history flows in a process of ever-refining synthesis, hegel submerged the individualconsciousness in a grand unity of ideal mind. but for the existentialist, who insists that reality isonly what he himself knows and experiences, this is meaningless. not only that, it is cruel andcoercive. the existentialist knows that the self is not submerged, it is present, here and now, asuffering existent, and any system of thought that overrides this suffering is tyrannical. "a crowdis untruth," kierkegaard repeats with choric insistence. only in the self can the drama of truthoccur.yet when the existentialist looks inside himself, what does he find? nothing. looking back  beyond birth or forward beyond death, he sees the void; looking into his own center, thrustingaside all knowledge, all memory, all sensation, he sees the chasm of the ego, formless andinconceivable, like the nucleus of an electron. and he is led to ask, as philosophers throughouthistory have asked: why is there anything instead of nothing, why the world, the universe, rather than a void? by concentrating all attention on this nothing within himself and underlying theobjective surface of reality, he gradually transforms nothing into the concept of nothingness, oneof the truly great accomplishments of human sensibility. nothingness as a force, a ground, areality ùin a certain sense the reality. from this comes man's despair, but also, if he has courage,his existential integrity.from this comes, too, the existentialist's opposition to humanism. not that he is inhumane; quitethe contrary, his entire preoccupation is with the sanity and efficacy of the individual person. buthe insists that men must confront nothingness. in a universe grounded in nothingness, theanthropocentric visionof reality that characterized rational humanism from the renaissance to the nineteenth century isclearly untenable. mankind, instead of being the central figure on the stage of reality, the rationalcreature for whom the nonrational world exists, is actually an accident, a late and adventitiousnewcomer whose life is governed by contingency; and the proof, paradoxically, comes fromrationalism itself, from the darwinian idea of evolution. whatever may be the case with trees andstones and stars, man the thinker is a by-product, a nonessential component of reality, and he and

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Anoreksik liked this
go2jie liked this
Andy Gantenbein liked this
fodoreanflaviu liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->